October 2005 ISSUE
SPECIAL PRESIDENT'S REPORT TO MEMBERS
NEW CATEGORY SHIFTS FROM AGENDA
On behalf of your Council, I am pleased to report our follow-up on the Inclusivity
Initiative, as well as on recent Inclusivity decisions taken by Council.
In response to concerns raised in 2004, Council has carefully reconsidered this initiative. Our exploration of the issues has demonstrated that members’ concerns are substantive and that an alternative solution is not readily apparent.
While we’re taking the decision that the new category option of Inclusivity will not be considered further at this time, Council continues to believe that the underlying issues are important for the future of your professions. Work will continue to identify and refine an optimal solution.
Where did Inclusivity come from and how did we reach this point?
Inclusivity was formulated in 2003 to establish a new membership category to accommodate applicants (typically internationally educated graduates) who fell outside the “Canadian syllabus or equivalent” requirements of full registration as P.Eng., P.Geol. or P.Geoph. The thinking behind the proposal was that such individuals could make a positive contribution at the professional level, with limited scopes appropriate to their training and experience. This way, they would be drawn into the professional arena of practice standards, the APEGGA Code of Ethics, Continuing Professional Development, and other APEGGA programs and requirements that help us protect the public.
However, as the proposal advanced toward a vote at the April 2004 Annual General Meeting, controversy erupted. Many concerned members were vocal about their perception that the proposal would “lower the bar,” regarding the capability of some applicants.
In response to these concerns, the Council of the day withdrew the proposal from the AGM agenda, referred it for further study, and earmarked it for a mail ballot (i.e. a larger sampling of the membership than the typical voting attendance at an AGM). Incoming President Linda Van Gastel, P.Eng., promised thorough consultation with the membership as the proposal was reconsidered.
An Inclusivity Consultation Group task force was struck, chaired by then Vice-President (now your President-Elect) Dave Chalcroft, P.Eng., and consisting of several councillors plus several members of the Board of Examiners. Considerable time and effort was invested in reviewing the thinking behind the initial initiative.
A white paper was drafted, which you can now read on the APEGGA website. Visit www.apega.ca to read the white paper, and click on the icon on the home page.
The white paper presents, in a balanced manner, the following options for
consideration
1. remain with the status quo
2. create a new category between full professional member and RPT categories
3. modify Board of Examiners procedures to be more flexible in evaluating the
qualifications of internationally educated graduates.
These options were the subject of considerable dialogue within Council and the Board of Examiners. They were also the topic of several focus groups, comprising randomly
selected members in Calgary, Edmonton and Fort McMurray. The focus groups
were designed and facilitated by expert advisers from Ipsos Reid, as the first
in a three-stage consultation process.
It is clear from the internal dialogue and the focus groups that significant
concerns continue with respect to the second option. The high standards inherent
in professional membership are a source of pride to members and, more importantly,
a source of assurance to the general public.
Members passionately believe it is important not to “lower the bar,” i.e. dilute the high quality of the professions, and that it is important to avoid confusion in the minds of the public about which level of professional to retain.
Interestingly, feedback from the focus groups also indicated that Option 1 is not a good alternative. Members noted that professions must evolve — without sacrificing high standards — as technologies and societal expectations progress around them.
As this information became available, it was carefully considered at the
Council meetings this spring. Upon receiving the report and recommendations from
the Inclusivity Consultation Group at the September 2005 meeting, Council decided
that Option 2 will not be considered further at this time.
The second and third stages of the consultation process are now unnecessary.
The current task force will stand down. A new task force will be struck to consider
alternatives that are being examined by sister associations and other professions.
Terms of reference for the new task force will be addressed at the December meeting
of Council.
At the same time, the Board of Examiners will engage in self-evaluation to identify possible changes to procedures which would provide alternate, effective ways to assess qualifications for full professional status. Although triggered by the recent discussions, this is not a response to that specific issue — rather a proactive, continuous improvement process to meet the challenges of changing times.
Comments from members are always welcome. They may be addressed to Council via myself, at president@apega.ca, or they can be shared with all of our colleagues by way of a letter to the editor of The PEGG.
Respectfully,
L.B. (Larry) Staples, P.Eng.
President